I’m an attorney, former marketing executive and publisher who has worked at Time, Scholastic, Playboy and several top ad agencies. For the past 15 years I’ve been an entrepreneur who has started and run several technology-based media companies – some successful, some not. I also the co-author of 7 books – including 3 best-sellers – and numerous articles. I’ve taught at Fordham, NYU and the Stanford Publishing Program; served on the Boards of the United States Naval Institute and the pediatric literacy program Reach Out and Read; and co-chaired the Clinton White House literacy task force the Prescription for Reading Partnership. I attended the U.S. Naval Academy and graduated from Brown University and New York Law School. My most recent book – which is a completely new version of my first best-seller – is about college admissions: Getting In!

The Three Biggest Lies in College Admission

Parrish Hall at the center of the Swarthmore College campus. Picture taken by me during Ride the Tide, 2006. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“The check is in the mail. I gave at the office. And …”

There are too many bad jokes that begin, “The three biggest lies are…”

What is happening in college admission, however, is no joke. Three big lies are gaining traction with families as they embark on this year’s tougher-than-ever college admission sweepstakes. Believing some of these lies will cost families money. Others can make the difference between an acceptance and a rejection.

There are three big lies making the rounds:

Standardized test (SAT and ACT) scores are less and less important.

Asking for financial aid won’t have an impact on the admission decision; and

There is a level playing field in college admissions.

So what’s the truth behind these misperceptions?

Lie #1: Standardized Tests are Less and Less Important

Today, colleges are relying on standardized test scores when making admissions decisions to a far larger degree than they have in years. One reason is that the number of applications at most top colleges is soaring. That’s not because there are more 18 year-olds graduating from high school. It is because more kids are each applying to more colleges. And with little increase in the size of admission staffs at most colleges, schools are using SAT and ACT scores to make a fast, easy cut of the applicant pool.

Of course, no college is going to admit this. Colleges love a big applicant pool; not just to craft a more attractive class, but to show the ranking services just how selective they are. (In the perverse rankings world, more rejections equal a higher ranking.) Instead, colleges are using several forms of numbers subterfuge to obfuscate what is really going on.

The Three Card Monte Test Score Range – Almost every college publishes the range of SAT scores that kids in the last entering class achieved. The schools call this the 25th to 75th percentile range. In other words, 50% of last year’s entering class had scores within this range.

So if a kid sees a school’s 25th-75th range as 1280 to 1430, the student might reasonable think that their 1300 SAT score gives them a fair shot at admission. Wrong. In reality, the bottom 25% (below 1280) is reserved for the school’s “special interests”: athletes, students of color, development (big donors.) “To have a real shot,” says Muska “you really have to be at the upper end of that range.”

For example, Vanderbilt reports its 25-75 SAT range as 1380 – 1550. In reality, most of its unhooked admittees had SAT scores above 1500.

Score choice and SuperScore – Score Choice refers to your sending your highest scores – from among the several times you took the SAT or ACT – to a college. SuperScore refers to the school considering just your highest score. Most colleges explain their policy on their website. Unfortunately, students aren’t the only ones who benefit from these beneficent policies; the colleges do too. Colleges like to report higher test scores for a very simple reason: it raises their ranking!

Test Optional Doesn’t Always Mean Test Optional – A number of very good colleges have a “test optional” policy. For kids who have good grades but test-anxiety, that can be a real blessing. Unfortunately, for athletes applying to NESCAC (“Little Ivy” schools like Williams, Amherst, and Middlebury) and Patriot league schools, that option doesn’t really exist. The athletic scholarship rules of those conferences require the colleges to report test scores.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Interesting, yet unsurprising article. As a student at the tail end of my collegiate career, I’ve learned that the entire system, especially as a student, is a delicate balancing act. While a majority of students want to go to college for the experience of meeting new people and savoring their last days of youth before adulthood, I have encountered peers who enjoy learning and came to college to “get a good job.” However, as many of our elders have pointed out, it’s getting more and more difficult to select an employee as young as we are based on the fact that we lack experience in the professional world. While classes and lectures are fine for one’s own sake, I can’t help but think that it’d be a better opportunity if students pursued careers earlier in college, rather than focus on a degree that doesn’t really solidify employment.

College is nothing but a business. There are no jobs out there after graduating unless you fall backwards to retail or fast food. Unless you have a relative, good friend, etc. already working in a company, chances are your resume is one of 100,000 sitting in the recruiters inbox.

Deborah, great post and I have a cousin who has fallen for the law school promises.

There is merit to sending Mormons out on their mission. There is merit to sending children out of the house to grow up with different and far more diverse populations. Their is merit in training workers to be more productive. However, too often the costs exceed these positive actions. First,the Mormons have the right idea with missions. These teach patience,collective responsibility, and fortitude. Major colleges cling to proposals first initiated by the military:you can find a path.This may or may not be true,for many factors enter into the equation including the false assumption,you can make the cut.The military keeps dangling the concept of achievement,unwilling to show the statistics on failure.The SAT have seldom been held up as predictors,for they consistently fail,just as training may fail to produce soldiers or sailors in very stressful situations. Secondly, camps are helpful in creating more mature adults. Difficult physical labor challenge and help make people more attuned to their comfort levels. Dealing with diverse individuals may or may not help a person mature since these same people may be insane,demented,or hateful.The worst may be colleges where expectations are kept very low since the alumni created a victimized attitude amongst the parents, faculty and student body. Lastly, romance,drugs,gambling,drinking may replace the far more difficult tasks of getting a degree or working. This is not simply true at 18,it is also not true at 28,38,48,and 58.College may lull students into believing they have a second,third,or fourth chance. All cultures must deal with this age group.They’re not a happy lot despite their sexual prowess and available mates.They face adulthood which in moden cultures is scary. In the US tradition the wonderful options exist.Emigration or moving may be the suitable alternative.”There’ no problem too big you can’t run away from.”Peanuts

I’ll take issue with colleges using the SAT or ACT to quickly weed out applicants. Yes, the 50 or 60 colleges or universities that are truly selective (accept fewer than 1/3 of the applicants) use SAT or ACT scores to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff. But once that initial cut is made, the review process become more subjective.

72% of US colleges and universities accept the majority of students who apply for admission. For these schools, the SAT or ACT are often only minor barriers to admission. High school courses taken, their difficulty and overall GPA are much more important in the admissions decision than standardized tests.

There is a self-limiting element to who is applying early. Which means: if a school is a “reach” for a student, the student should not apply early. His odds of getting rejected are greater than if he applied early – the early decision applicant pool is simply better-credentialed.

Is that typed wrong – don’t apply early because the odds of being rejected are higher than if they applied early?

The College Application Organizer, developed by Kenneth Friedman for use with iPhones/iPads helps students stay organized from the start of the application process until acceptance start rolling in. For under $4 this is the best college tip you will get! https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/college-application-organizer/id677510655?mt=8

The actual situation is even worse. Need blind does not exist, no more. In my daughter’s school, most of the students, who applied top 20 universities with financial aid, had been rejected. However, those students, who have far lower GPA but going to pay full fees, got accepted. Need blind is simply a fraud to those hard working students